When I first began reading How Soccer Explains the World I had some doubts to say the least. Surely to begin using a sport to analyze global economies and the effects of globalization would take a bit of stretching on the part of the author to say the least. Or so I thought.

As I begun to bite into the text, I was constantly stunned at how ingrained soccer is in these countries. Not to say that I was unaware that much of the world lives and dies with their teams but from what I have gathered so far, for many countries the teams representing them are ingrained in the culture and even more interestingly, the politics. I found it fascinating that those living in these countries take allegiance to a jersey to mean the same thing as allegiance to a certain mob group and that by cheering for a certain team you are unknowingly, or sometimes perhaps knowingly acknowledging that you may be targeted.

But by applying my experience with sports, I can easily see how this may be acomplished. After all, compitition between NFL fanbases can get fairly intesnse. You definetly do not want to be running through an Oakland ghetto with an orange and blue Manning jersey. Why? Because fans of a team begin to feel that their team is somehow representative of who they are and what they and their city represent. Now when you take this level of compitition, add in the fact that soccer is most often international instead of between cities and then hrow in some political instability it is easy to see how soccer can be used as an allegory to explain the world.

An Honest graduation Speech

Comman Man (I promise, I will never make a pun that bad again)

This blog post is a response to the following article: Will We Use Commas in the Future?

I have always loved the ability of language to mold itself into what society demands of it. Although I had never before thought that there would be a possibility for language, and more specifically spoken English, to go through such a major transition as losing the comma would provide. Apparently though, there are even those who consider that English would “suffer so little loss of clarity that there could even be a case made for not using commas at all” (McWhorter).

This principle worries me. Because although I do argue that written language should in fact reflect spoken English, I would also argue that commas are in place to do just that. Matthew Malady argues in his article “Will We Use Commas in the Future?” that “we’re dropping commas more than ever because so much of our daily writing now consists of quick text messages and hastily typed emails” (Malady). And when it comes to the literal idea of dropping commas from these texts, the idea of the commas remain in place in even our most casual pieces of literature.

This is an idea that is even touched upon within the article. This occurs when,in the article, Malady includes a set of tweets that show how the comma is losing its purpose in modern-day language. Sure, at the surface the comment by Andrew Grow that “our generation uses “lol” like commas” argues that commas are losing their value in writing. Nevertheless, his comment is still enforcing the value of commas in writing. Because while commas may be disappearing in modern  texts, the concept of providing a cue to pause is not. 

Think about it. In text messages we may no longer be punctuating our sentences with commas, however we are still providing cues to the reader of said texts to take pauses in their reading. This may take the form of an lol, an emoticon, or even a new text message. Because if you think about it, sending multiple text messages or inserting an lol is giving the reader a clue to take a break, and in essence, you may as well be using a comma.

To sum up, I would argue that while in more casual forms of literature where the comma itself is disappearing, the concept lives on. And in more colloquial forms of writing where you would not want to be scattering lols throughout the paper, the comma itself continues to make itself heard.. And while, yes, it would be possible to achieve a comprehensive, colloquial piece of writing without the use of commas as with Malady’s “Will We Use Commas in the Future?”, it would be the exception to the rule. Because in the end we do not speak in a one steady stream but rather in packets of words that are separated by slight pauses or commas.

The Opinion of an Illiterate

Perhaps it is solely because I am an “ignorant and illiterate” (Garner) highschooler. However, nonetheless I must side with Robert Lane in this argument. I believe that language is a direct reflection of the era in which we are living and that it always has been. Consequentially,  I would also believe that to an extent prescriptivists are living in the past.  And while Gardner refers to his kind as “guardians of the language” (Garner) he never specifies what exactly he is guarding the language from. My guess would be that based on his attitude towards literature that he would be referring to the ignorance of people when regards to language. Moreover, if I am correct in saying that language is a reflection of the society in which it is birthed than Garner is in effect declaring that society as a whole is “disgraceful” (Garner).

This seems to be a popular opinion as of late. That all of society has somehow gone to (insert preferred expletive here).  However this opinion is itself a natural aspect of society. It is not as if these thoughts are at all new, however. In fact the people claiming that society is somehow doomed have existed virtually throughout the existence of civilized society. It is natural for there to be a haughty group of linguists in every era of society which believe that they are somehow above the times.

I suppose that for me, flow is more important than any rules of speech and will always be. Obviously basic grammar rules must always be heeded to ensure the literature is legible. However, as long as the ground-rules of modern English are followed, the flow is generally superior when using conventions popularized in society.

“When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide” (Lane). And the reason being for this, in my opinion, is that if litterature follows what is used in society then consequently society will more easily be able to follow the literature. It makes sense. After all, it is the connotation of words is always the meaning that is generally accepted in society. While the literal definition of bitch is “a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter” (Google),  nobody is going to go around a pet store asking to see the new bitches.

The Heroics of Juxtaposition

To an extent this program was getting at more than just superheroes. The juxtaposition of these two stories makes this clear. One is about a self made hero. Somebody who worked impossibly hard to get where she was and ended up getting what she wanted. The other tells of two children who were thrust into a roll of power, a role of supposed wizardry where they alone had the power to command an army. And yet while both certainly commanded power, there was something fundamentally different between the two. This is how they react to their positions of power.

Because when, in act 2 they are interviewing Zora about how she felt about her life as an investigator she had this aura of strength about her. She always seemed to exude confidence and even when she was admitting that even she occasionally had fears, she accepted and  reflected on them. She was very to the point.

The complete opposite was true in regards to the twins. When asked about how they felt regarding their positions of power, they beat around the bush. They act as if they have powers but due to the current circumstances, can’t show them off. In fact, it is only after the war is over that they reveal their true colors. They were never intending to do what they ended up doing. They were doing it because it was keeping them alive. All this when in reality, they just wanted their mother.

The difference between them then, what initially set these two apart was how they started. Zora chose her path and stuck to it. She knew where she was going and how she was going to get there. In the end she became a true hero. The twins were forced into their situation and through this, never got the chance to gain the attributes a self made hero would posses.

In fact, this story I believe is getting at a broader topic. How to be a true success you cannot simply inherit power, you must earn it. For somebody thrust into power or success may be able to fake the qualities of a self-made man/woman however they will never truly posses them. Because to posses them you have to go through the challenges associated with becoming what said person wishes to posses such as Zora’s list. A self-made hero can then take those experiences and apply them to situations in the future. An inherited hero has nothing to call upon and is extremely ineffective.

Clearly this point is hit home through the use of juxtaposition in this broadcast. This is due to the fact that if it had been just the story on Zora or just the story on the twins, they would have been just that - a story on Zora or the twins. However, the fact that they were positioned closely in the broadcast provides a stark contrast which brings the ideas I have discussed into the picture. It is  seeing such a difference in two people that each hold power which leads one to question what set them apart. This is the power of juxtaposition.

A Picture is Worth 1000 Words.

After finally finishing Persepolis and ultimately seeing Marji escape a possibly horrible execution in Iran, I had felt like I had just finished a 300 page book. An everyday book with text on every page. But shouldn't this feel different? I mean this book is under 200 pages and littered with photographs. Shouldn't I feel as if I had just finished a book of Calvin and Hobbes? I mean sure, they are complete polar opposites in that Calvin and Hobbes is a humorous comic and Persepolis is a fairly dark comic. But they are just that. Comics. Or that is what conventional wisdom would tell you, at least.

This just shows you how comics are purely a medium of writing. They are not a genre as many people come to understand. If fact just the other day a friend of mine asked to see what book I was reading. In response I showed him Persepolis  and was fairly surprised to have him respond by saying “why are you reading a graphic novel in AP lang. As if somehow the class should be above this medium.

In fact, in just my last blog I described the effectiveness of comics at getting information across, however this time I want to present it with some evidence. To prove my point I went to Wikipedia and then to the summary section for two books: The Kite Runner and Persepolis. Both are books with similar themes and plots. And both delve into fairly dark themes. And when I scrolled down to the plot summary section, even I was somewhat surprised. The Kite Runner had a fairly lengthy summary, around maybe 3/4 of a page. This was to be expected.

What surprised me though is that Persepolis, the comic had a summary twice as long. Incredible. This being a book which has maybe 1/1000th the text that Persepolis contains and yet it took longer to summarize Persepolis.

Clearly this shows the depth to which the combination of visuals and texts can display information. It is almost as if there is a multiplication sign in between the text and accompanying visual. If there are 10 words by a frame, then clearly the picture is a multiplication factor of 100, leaving a value of 1000.

Reading Through the Eyes of a Child

I’ll be honest. When I first picked up Persepolis I was expecting to be hurled into an alternate reality I had never before experienced. I was expecting a journey in which I would unearth the secrets of how life would be like growing up in Iran. However, this is not what I received. Not exactly at least. And this is, in my opinion, what gives this book so much power.

Obviously the whole point of the book is to show the revolution in Iran in a way that us ignorant westerners can understand. This is a tall task. However, author Marjan Satrapi is up to it. And in fact, not only does she succeed in shedding light on the revolution in a way that westerners can understand. But instead she successfully bridges the gap between two cultures which on the surface may seem extremely different.

And yes, I understand that this is partially due to the reason that Satrapi was fairly wealthy. She being of that status, at least to begin her life, may have had more  similarities to those of us in western cultures. However, this does not detract from the fact that through her writing finesse she is able to erase the boundaries between readers and is able to then tell the story of her life.

She is able to do this through focusing on the general. Satrapi, in her book is able to focus on aspects of childhood, of innocence. Traits that are not race-specific but rather traits of the human race. And through this perception of innocence she is able to convey her feelings for her country in a way which seems natural to us. Sure, pretending to be Fidel Castro may seem messed up in our eyes. But when she tells of her dreams of  dictatorship, it feels strangely natural.